Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If the Senator from Nevada will yield, I will try to respond to his inquiry. No. 1, since so many people are busy during the lunch hour with the steering committees and the type meeting that both parties have, we might not be so fortunate as to get something up before 1:15 when the Wellstone amendment is up. The second is, the Senator asked if we could do another amendment. What amendment would the Senator suggest we move to, then?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes occur with respect to the Carnahan amendment, No. 40, and the Smith of Oregon amendment, No. 95, and the Wyden amendment, No. 78, as amended, at approximately 10:45 a.m. on Wednesday, and that following the votes, the Senate resume consideration of the Wellstone amendment, No. 36. I further ask consent that at 10:30 a.m. Senator Bingaman be recognized for up to 10 minutes for debate and Senator Hagel be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes. I further ask consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to any of the above-listed amendments, where applicable, and there be up to 5 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, we have an objection to part of this on our side, that the Wellstone amendment not be taken up because we don't have the modification yet.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes of the time remaining. Senator Conrad's amendment is very bad medicine for our seniors, in terms of this fuzzying up the issue. If we allow this to happen, we are going to perpetuate the hoax that Medicare is running a surplus so that we can postpone urgently needed improvements in Medicare. The Senator's amendment also leads Americans into believing we can't provide tax relief for hard-working families and at the same time protect Medicare and Social Security. The Senator is just plain wrong because over the next 10 years we will be spending $3.8 trillion just on Medicare. That is more than two times the size of any proposed tax cut. To say that we on this side of the aisle are shortchanging seniors is ludicrous. In fact, the Senator's amendment would shortchange Medicare patients by splitting Medicare in half and leaving Part B of the program, including prescription drugs, unprotected. In 1993, Congress voted to tax up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits and transfer those taxes into the Part A trust fund. In 1997, Congress voted to transfer the cost of home health out of Part A trust fund into Part B. Had these two actions not occurred, there would be no surplus in Part A. Medicare Part B will run a deficit of more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, completely offsetting the $400 billion surplus in Part A. Splitting Medicare in half would only further these accounting gimmicks and mislead seniors into believing Medicare is secure. Of course, we know that is not the case. We think it is time to be very open with our seniors about Medicare's financial condition. We have the opportunity this year to modernize Medicare, provide prescription drug coverage, and put the program on a sound footing for our seniors, particularly for baby boomers. We want to protect the Medicare surplus so it can be used for this purpose, and this purpose only. Senator Conrad's amendment will deprive seniors of what they need most, a stronger, updated Medicare program, by locking away the Medicare dollars and making them unavailable for much-needed improvements. Is this what our seniors want? I don't think so. They want something for future generations. This lockbox approach has one additional problem: When you add it to the additional one-third of the on-budget surplus the amendment would then reserve for debt reduction, it would equal $3.8 trillion. That exceeds the total amount of publicly held debt by $700 billion, and it exceeds the amount of debt available to be repaid by $1.5 trillion. As a result, the Government will be forced to invest the excess surplus in the private sector. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has warned that such investments could disrupt financial markets and reduce the efficiency of our economy. My colleague from New Mexico has said that very well and demonstrated it with the chart. Moreover, it is important to remember that the Senate has already voted 99-0 in the year 1999 against allowing the Government to invest the Social Security surplus in the private sector. I oppose the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota and support Senator Domenici's amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the bankruptcy reform legislation. Votes will occur on the following amendments in a stacked sequence at approximately 10:45 a.m.: the Carnahan amendment No. 40, the Smith of Oregon amendment No. 95, and the Wyden amendment No. 78. Following the votes, debate on the Wellstone amendment regarding debt collection will resume. Further amendments are expected to be offered, debated, and also voted on. By previous consent, the cloture vote will occur at 4 p.m. Therefore, pursuant to rule XXII, second-degree amendments must be filed by 3 p.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Thomas or his designee, 9:30 to 10 o'clock; Senator Feingold or his designee, 10 o'clock to 10:30.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet to hold a hearing on the Administration's proposed budget for veterans' programs for fiscal year 2002. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, to hear testimony regarding Living Without Health Insurance: Who's Uninsured and Why?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, to consider the Affordable Education Act of 2001.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, at 2 p.m. on S. 361--Age 60 Rule.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. on S. 415--Aviation Competition Restoration Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we will have $28 trillion coming into the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years. We are taking $3.1 trillion of that off the table for Social Security. Social Security money will only be spent on Social Security, and Medicare money will only be spent on Medicare. We have the $1.6 trillion tax cut because Americans are overtaxed. We are going to give tax relief to every taxpayer. We have $900 billion left over. That is a rainy day fund. When they raise questions, as they have just now, on the other side of the aisle--Will we be able to afford it? Will we have the money for prescription drugs for seniors in America?--we will have a plan that will give universal coverage to seniors in America. It will be affordable, and we will improve Medicare so that Medicare fits the practice of medicine today. When it was passed in 1965, the practice of medicine was to put everybody in the hospital. Today, the practice of medicine is to keep people out of the hospital. Obviously, prescription drugs are a big part of why not so many people are going the expensive route of hospitalization. I hope it is clear that this is well thought out, and we will be able to do the things we have said we would do. If we do nothing and that money is in the pockets of Congressmen and Senators in Washington, it is surely burning a hole, and if it is burning a hole, it has to be spent. If we keep up the level of spending that recent remarks indicate we ought to, at 6 percent growth each of the last 3 years, and continue that for 10 years instead of a $1.6 trillion tax relief, we will not only eat up the $1.6 trillion, we will eat up a half trillion dollars more. Then we get that level of expenditure up to where we are now at 20.6 percent of gross national product, and we see a downturn in the economy about which these nervous nellies are concerned. The income is going to go down but the expenditures never go down. We do not operate as a business in the sense of when there is a change of income, we change our spending behavior. That is what needs to be considered by everybody. By having a surplus of only 5.6 percent of the $28 trillion coming in over the next 10 years, a little bit less than one-third is going to go to the taxpayers, some of it is for a rainy day, and the rest of it is to keep our commitment to Social Security and Medicare. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. Let me tell you why we don't hear that from the other side. They talk about tax cuts, but they don't have a passion for tax cuts. They talk about reducing the national debt, but they don't have a passion for reducing the national debt. What they have a passion for is muddying the waters, maintaining the status quo, keeping the high level of taxation we have today, so that when we have 20.6 percent of the gross national product coming into the Federal Treasury in taxes today, at the highest level in the history of the country--if we maintain the status quo, in 10 years it will be at 22.7 percent. They are going to be able to spend that. They have a passion for spending. That is why they do not like this program that gives every working man and woman in America, every taxpayer in America who pays income taxes, a tax cut, and it has a larger share of tax cuts for lower and middle- income people than for higher income people.

Mr. GRASSLEY. When we are all done passing the proposal the President has put before Congress, we will actually have the high-income people of America paying a higher percentage of the income tax coming into the Federal Treasury than right now.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how ironic it is that we hear about the negativism of the President toward the economy. And then, in turn, we hear all of this negative comment about the new President. It just doesn't quite add up. I can stand here and talk about the Clinton recession we might be in because the manufacturing index turned down in September and has been turning down since. I could talk about the Clinton recession from the standpoint of the confidence index, which started turning down in August. But I don't think blaming gets much accomplished. I think we have to look to the future, and the future is that we can pay down the national debt. We have a tax surplus. We can give tax relief to every taxpayer--the working men and women who have made a big difference, the entrepreneurs who have made a big difference over the last 10 years to help us pay down the national debt. We can fund our priorities. When we use the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan economist, to judge what the future is--and it is a difficult thing to do, but it is no more difficult than the young workers who are trying to look ahead to see what their income is going to be and convince the banker that they ought to get a 30-year mortgage. They put a lot of trust in the future in order to pay off that mortgage. We put a lot of trust in the future, too, to make a determination of how much income we are going to have coming in over the next 10 years. We determined that that is about $28 billion, $29 billion. Out of that, we will have a $5.6 trillion surplus. Out of that $5.6 trillion surplus, we are going to take $3.1 trillion off because of trust funds--Social Security: Save Social Security income just for Social Security, Medicare money just for Medicare. And then we have money for a $1.6 trillion tax cut. Every American who pays income tax will get a tax cut. Every American who is at a $35,000 income--a family of four--will have a 100-percent tax reduction. A family of four at $50,000 will have a 50-percent tax reduction. Six million people who are now paying taxes won't pay any taxes after this program is passed. When we are all done passing this legislation, the wealthy, the higher income people of America, will actually be paying a higher share of the total income tax money coming into the Federal Treasury than before under present law.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I will.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration S. Res. 59 submitted earlier by Senator Hutchison of Texas for herself and others.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and, finally, any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.